This times 1000. Mandating incrementally improved fuel economy by vehicle class hasn't actually improved fleet fuel economy. People now just buy less fuel efficient trucks and SUVs instead of fuel efficient cars. The economy standards affect the price of the fuel efficient cars MORE than they do the gas guzzlers, thus pricing the cars best for emissions out of the market and making heavy trucks and SUVs more attractive. The price of gas is low, so people aren't afraid to spend more at the pump over the life of the vehicle.
If anything the fuel economy standards have hurt us more than they have helped us. And I actually want to buy a station wagon and there are practically none left. And the ones that are still around have about the same fuel economy as the ones available for sale in the early 2000s despite having more gears, automatic engine shutdown, and other crap on them. Might as well buy an SUV for about the same money despite unnecessary ground clearance, AWD I don't need, and worse fuel economy...
So you do need ID to purchase things that are typically bought on a trip to the grocery store. Glad we settled that. Personally I have been carded for buying: Alcohol, toilet paper on sale, glue, paint, cans of air, certain medicines, and other things commonly found at grocery stores.
Why is it that Trump's detractors have a problem with absolutes and subsets? Good people on both sides doesn't mean everyone on both sides was good. Criminals and rapists coming across the border does not mean that everyone crossing the border is a criminal or rapist. Requiring ID for groceries does not mean that all groceries require ID.
I'm not even a Trump supporter. Stop making me defend this asshole!
Ding ding ding ding! Took a lot of scrolling but finally found the post that describes the stupidity of the premise of the article. If college students don't have enough money to eat, why are they living in luxury dorms with luxury amenities? Colleges today build 5 star recreation facilities, 5 star dining halls, and every dorm has AC, fast internet, and full cable. Probably a few game rooms too.
When my parents went to college, they had basic brick dorms with minimal amenities, cheap crappy food, and maybe a running track and an open field for recreation. Didn't cost them an arm and a leg and they got great educations. Now those same universities are reducing classroom space to add more luxury accommodations.
Most plants for ethanol use in the USA are grown locally. Except in markets where it has to be imported like Florida. But the reason cattle farms are in the Amazon is because they got displaced from other regions by biofuel production for the Brazilian market... https://globalforestatlas.yale...
At least they are using sugar cane which is more efficient than corn.
And every grocery store I've ever been to has it in a big ol' section with huge signs saying "Non-Dairy" all over the place. Hipsters eat that shit up... Meanwhile eggs are still sold in the dairy section. How about the FDA fix that?
I agree with you on the hilly areas being less likely to have organized grids. Which is why Atlanta's graph makes no sense... Many of the major arterials aren't straight. Also, the downtown area has a huge kink in it that may or may not be reflected in the summary representation.
I agree. There are far too many stop signs in the world and not nearly enough go signs. 4 way stops are the lazy "traffic calming" or "I don't want to design this intersection".
Do you really not understand the difference between regulating industry emissions of a chemical versus respiration?
Are you arguing that oil companies should only be held accountable for the emissions they produce in the course of their business? Because the vast majority of emissions come from the end user (i.e. all of us who drive cars and heat homes with natural gas or heating oil) not the "industry emissions". If that is the case, you'd better be suing the entire 1st world instead of oil companies... In essence you would regardless if oil companies actually end up fined because the end user will be paying for the fines in the end.
I agree. His investigative pieces that don't rely on politics tend to be excellent. But those must not have gotten the ratings... Now it's political hit-piece after political rant... I even sent that rat faced bastard Pi dollars for his seed campaign. Whatever happened to shit like that? Nah, easier to dump on Trump.
Yes, it can alert officials... And then what? If it's someone intending to do harm, it's probably too late by the time the computer identifies the threat and someone capable of stopping the threat is able to respond.
Demonstrably untrue. A college degree of many kinds will put you in debt and working a minimum wage job. How does that put you ahead of someone who got that minimum wage job out of high school and has been making money for 4 years?
It sure helps their case... Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and immigration seekers don't have a right to counsel. If they don't understand our laws, we have no obligation to explain to them our laws for their benefit.
I would argue that democracy is already NOT working on immigration. Nothing has passed Congress since 2005 (REAL ID Act) and those were minor tweaks. The last real immigration reform was in 1996 (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996). I'm not about using kids as leverage for politics, but previous administrations (Obama and Bush) and congresses have done nothing useful to mitigate the problem.
As far as if this migration is a problem, I would argue it is. The US was built on immigration. Limited and controlled population shifts. The system we have now is everyone from every poor country in the Americas walks over the line and disappears without documentation. Without documentation or control, do we really know what we are getting? Where are these people going to live? What are they going to do to sustain themselves? What are we going to do when they inevitably have kids that are legally citizens of our country now and not citizens of their families' country of origin? Are you going to take in a migrant family? Will you give them a piece of your land and take responsibility for their actions?
My preferred solution would be to close the borders, discourage migrants from coming illegally, and offer undocumented people in this country already a sweet ass deal. In exchange for them registering, paying taxes, and agreeing to a path to citizenship, they will get authorization to work, a grant of federal land, and a status to participate in the legal economy.
Fleeing from chemical warfare, airstrikes, and ISIS makes you a refugee, not someone claiming asylum. Refugees have a different legal framework. Asylum is a specific legal case for people who are specifically targeted by a foreign government or entity because of a protected status.
I agree that the real fix is to fix the immigration system and migration status quo. The status quo had been for migrants come into the USA illegally. You'll probably have a better life and face no consequences! That's a recipe for masses coming across the border unregulated which is what we have today. Trumps policy is, if you come into the country illegally, we'll take your kids and you might never see them again. It's a horrible thing to do, but it definitely does discourage migration...
If we are dropping pretenses, is the policy effective? Are we more likely to have actual immigration reform come through Congress? Are migrants going to stop coming to the US illegally for fear of their family being split apart?
I'm not saying that splitting up families is good or the right thing to do, but if we are leaving those pretenses behind, is it better for families to be discouraged from making a dangerous and illegal journey in the first place? Is there anything else we can do to force Congress to actually make better laws?
Assuming you are a US citizen, run a red light with your family in the car in another country where you arrived in that country without going through a border crossing and you have no valid visa. Do other countries detain the whole family together?
Serious question, I have no idea how other countries handle that sort of thing. Even worse if your country of citizenship offers you no legal help and doesn't want to assist you in returning home...
Do they have an asylum case? Do they know what the classifications and definitions of asylum are? Or were they told "just say asylum when you get there"? These asylum seekers not only don't have a case or evidence, they are often illiterate. They come across the border, not at a designated crossing, don't voluntarily seek legal officials, and have no prepared case for asylum. They just either know when they come in that asylum claims will allow them to stay longer or they get legal council that tells them asylum is their only option for legally staying.
Did they flee a country that sucks? Yes. Is their case special and meeting the three criteria for asylum (from Wikipedia)? First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[3] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.
If someone comes across the border illegally, doesn't immediately seek legal means of declaring asylum, and doesn't have a prepared case for the three criteria, then how are they asylum seekers? Sounds to me like they are using legal language to ride the legal bureaucracy as long as they can because the USA has a reputation for a broken immigration system that is overwhelmed with people. Throwing children into the mix adds to the complication and the difficulty in caring for the people caught.
If this guy is anything like my wife (who has Crohns) he's hit the max out of pocket cost already... My wife's Entyvio infusion gets billed at 25k a pop (I think insurance "negotiates" that down to 8k or so) and she gets them every 8 weeks.
Makes it easy to estimate medical expenses for the year though. Just premiums plus max out of pocket. Well unless insurance decides to screw you by denying coverage on something that is necessary...
Slashdot Mirror
This times 1000. Mandating incrementally improved fuel economy by vehicle class hasn't actually improved fleet fuel economy. People now just buy less fuel efficient trucks and SUVs instead of fuel efficient cars. The economy standards affect the price of the fuel efficient cars MORE than they do the gas guzzlers, thus pricing the cars best for emissions out of the market and making heavy trucks and SUVs more attractive. The price of gas is low, so people aren't afraid to spend more at the pump over the life of the vehicle.
If anything the fuel economy standards have hurt us more than they have helped us. And I actually want to buy a station wagon and there are practically none left. And the ones that are still around have about the same fuel economy as the ones available for sale in the early 2000s despite having more gears, automatic engine shutdown, and other crap on them. Might as well buy an SUV for about the same money despite unnecessary ground clearance, AWD I don't need, and worse fuel economy...
So you do need ID to purchase things that are typically bought on a trip to the grocery store. Glad we settled that. Personally I have been carded for buying: Alcohol, toilet paper on sale, glue, paint, cans of air, certain medicines, and other things commonly found at grocery stores.
Why is it that Trump's detractors have a problem with absolutes and subsets? Good people on both sides doesn't mean everyone on both sides was good. Criminals and rapists coming across the border does not mean that everyone crossing the border is a criminal or rapist. Requiring ID for groceries does not mean that all groceries require ID.
I'm not even a Trump supporter. Stop making me defend this asshole!
Ding ding ding ding! Took a lot of scrolling but finally found the post that describes the stupidity of the premise of the article. If college students don't have enough money to eat, why are they living in luxury dorms with luxury amenities? Colleges today build 5 star recreation facilities, 5 star dining halls, and every dorm has AC, fast internet, and full cable. Probably a few game rooms too.
When my parents went to college, they had basic brick dorms with minimal amenities, cheap crappy food, and maybe a running track and an open field for recreation. Didn't cost them an arm and a leg and they got great educations. Now those same universities are reducing classroom space to add more luxury accommodations.
Most plants for ethanol use in the USA are grown locally. Except in markets where it has to be imported like Florida. But the reason cattle farms are in the Amazon is because they got displaced from other regions by biofuel production for the Brazilian market... https://globalforestatlas.yale...
At least they are using sugar cane which is more efficient than corn.
Yes, instead we can clear rainforest to grow plants for ethanol! Because biofuels are so good for the environment!
Show me on the straw man where the libertarian hurt you.
And every grocery store I've ever been to has it in a big ol' section with huge signs saying "Non-Dairy" all over the place. Hipsters eat that shit up... Meanwhile eggs are still sold in the dairy section. How about the FDA fix that?
So what the hell is a "shea" and how do you make butter from it anyhow?
I agree with you on the hilly areas being less likely to have organized grids. Which is why Atlanta's graph makes no sense... Many of the major arterials aren't straight. Also, the downtown area has a huge kink in it that may or may not be reflected in the summary representation.
Hell the people around Atlanta can't even figure out the "Keep Moving" signs telling them not to stop.
I agree. There are far too many stop signs in the world and not nearly enough go signs. 4 way stops are the lazy "traffic calming" or "I don't want to design this intersection".
How would you feel if your restaurant bill had a 20% Not pissing in your soup fee?
Isn't that what the suggested tip amount is?
Human habitations are also not a permanent feature of the planet. They can very well move.
Do you really not understand the difference between regulating industry emissions of a chemical versus respiration?
Are you arguing that oil companies should only be held accountable for the emissions they produce in the course of their business? Because the vast majority of emissions come from the end user (i.e. all of us who drive cars and heat homes with natural gas or heating oil) not the "industry emissions". If that is the case, you'd better be suing the entire 1st world instead of oil companies... In essence you would regardless if oil companies actually end up fined because the end user will be paying for the fines in the end.
I agree. His investigative pieces that don't rely on politics tend to be excellent. But those must not have gotten the ratings... Now it's political hit-piece after political rant... I even sent that rat faced bastard Pi dollars for his seed campaign. Whatever happened to shit like that? Nah, easier to dump on Trump.
Yes, it can alert officials... And then what? If it's someone intending to do harm, it's probably too late by the time the computer identifies the threat and someone capable of stopping the threat is able to respond.
Should Slashdot have editors belong in the workplace?
Demonstrably untrue. A college degree of many kinds will put you in debt and working a minimum wage job. How does that put you ahead of someone who got that minimum wage job out of high school and has been making money for 4 years?
It sure helps their case... Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and immigration seekers don't have a right to counsel. If they don't understand our laws, we have no obligation to explain to them our laws for their benefit.
I would argue that democracy is already NOT working on immigration. Nothing has passed Congress since 2005 (REAL ID Act) and those were minor tweaks. The last real immigration reform was in 1996 (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996). I'm not about using kids as leverage for politics, but previous administrations (Obama and Bush) and congresses have done nothing useful to mitigate the problem.
As far as if this migration is a problem, I would argue it is. The US was built on immigration. Limited and controlled population shifts. The system we have now is everyone from every poor country in the Americas walks over the line and disappears without documentation. Without documentation or control, do we really know what we are getting? Where are these people going to live? What are they going to do to sustain themselves? What are we going to do when they inevitably have kids that are legally citizens of our country now and not citizens of their families' country of origin? Are you going to take in a migrant family? Will you give them a piece of your land and take responsibility for their actions?
My preferred solution would be to close the borders, discourage migrants from coming illegally, and offer undocumented people in this country already a sweet ass deal. In exchange for them registering, paying taxes, and agreeing to a path to citizenship, they will get authorization to work, a grant of federal land, and a status to participate in the legal economy.
Fleeing from chemical warfare, airstrikes, and ISIS makes you a refugee, not someone claiming asylum. Refugees have a different legal framework. Asylum is a specific legal case for people who are specifically targeted by a foreign government or entity because of a protected status.
I agree that the real fix is to fix the immigration system and migration status quo. The status quo had been for migrants come into the USA illegally. You'll probably have a better life and face no consequences! That's a recipe for masses coming across the border unregulated which is what we have today. Trumps policy is, if you come into the country illegally, we'll take your kids and you might never see them again. It's a horrible thing to do, but it definitely does discourage migration...
If we are dropping pretenses, is the policy effective? Are we more likely to have actual immigration reform come through Congress? Are migrants going to stop coming to the US illegally for fear of their family being split apart?
I'm not saying that splitting up families is good or the right thing to do, but if we are leaving those pretenses behind, is it better for families to be discouraged from making a dangerous and illegal journey in the first place? Is there anything else we can do to force Congress to actually make better laws?
Assuming you are a US citizen, run a red light with your family in the car in another country where you arrived in that country without going through a border crossing and you have no valid visa. Do other countries detain the whole family together?
Serious question, I have no idea how other countries handle that sort of thing. Even worse if your country of citizenship offers you no legal help and doesn't want to assist you in returning home...
Do they have an asylum case? Do they know what the classifications and definitions of asylum are? Or were they told "just say asylum when you get there"? These asylum seekers not only don't have a case or evidence, they are often illiterate. They come across the border, not at a designated crossing, don't voluntarily seek legal officials, and have no prepared case for asylum. They just either know when they come in that asylum claims will allow them to stay longer or they get legal council that tells them asylum is their only option for legally staying.
Did they flee a country that sucks? Yes. Is their case special and meeting the three criteria for asylum (from Wikipedia)? First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[3] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.
If someone comes across the border illegally, doesn't immediately seek legal means of declaring asylum, and doesn't have a prepared case for the three criteria, then how are they asylum seekers? Sounds to me like they are using legal language to ride the legal bureaucracy as long as they can because the USA has a reputation for a broken immigration system that is overwhelmed with people. Throwing children into the mix adds to the complication and the difficulty in caring for the people caught.
If this guy is anything like my wife (who has Crohns) he's hit the max out of pocket cost already... My wife's Entyvio infusion gets billed at 25k a pop (I think insurance "negotiates" that down to 8k or so) and she gets them every 8 weeks.
Makes it easy to estimate medical expenses for the year though. Just premiums plus max out of pocket. Well unless insurance decides to screw you by denying coverage on something that is necessary...